Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dad's ethnic minority status cannot possibly explain this.

As certain politicians and newspapers have explained over the past few days, non-white people are actually treated favourably by our two-tier police service.

It is better for humanity if people learn to not take what these certain politicians and newspaper tell you as gospel and instead try and speak to these "non-whites" to hear their lived in experiences for a balanced view.

Dear all,

Pic of the Report: https://smallpdf.com/share-document#r=result&t=0e75490b7c08cb951e0a1e264c365b76&i=share

I would appreciate some advice regarding an incident involving my dad (Male, 68 years old) on 26th May.

He was driving behind a bus that had stopped to let passengers off. After indicating and checking that the adjacent lane was clear, he moved into that lane to pass the stationary bus. Shortly afterwards, a police car with two officers pulled him over and issued him with a traffic offence report.

My dad questioned what offence had been committed, as he believed he had driven safely and legally. During the conversation, the explanation seemed unclear. One officer suggested there could have been school children crossing, although it was half-term and the road was very quiet. When my dad asked whether it was illegal to change lanes to pass a stopped bus, he was told he needed to be "more careful" but was not given a clear explanation of the specific offence.

The officer who spoke did most of the talking, while the second officer remained largely silent. At one point, the speaking officer asked the other officer to "book it in", but she appeared reluctant to do so and refused.

I'm trying to understand whether there is an offence here that we may be missing. Is there a Highway Code rule or traffic law that would make this manoeuvre unlawful, assuming the lane change was carried out safely and the road ahead was clear?

My dad also came away feeling that he may have been treated differently because he is visibly from an ethnic minority background. We have no proof of this, and I appreciate there may be other explanations, but it has left him feeling quite upset about the encounter.

Any insight into the legal position or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated. Would it be advisable to take the course being offered as the easiest route?

Thank you.

After reading all the google pages, to the best of my ability (which is limited in terms of parking laws), I will say this is a private industrial land and not subject to any byelaws. Chatgpt has typed up the below defence using the template from newbies. Please can anyone look over and let me know if this is good to post or should I copy and paste the original template instead?

DEFENCE
1.
The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action.
Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that a parking charge already includes the costs of enforcement. Any additional sums are therefore unrecoverable. The court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.
________________________________________
2.
The allegation is vague and liability is denied in full. The Defendant admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The Defendant was not the driver at the material time and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant is under no obligation to name the driver.
________________________________________
3. No Keeper Liability
The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant and fails to establish keeper liability. Accordingly, the Claimant cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Defendant.
In the absence of full compliance with POFA, the claim against the registered keeper must fail.
________________________________________
4. The Facts – No Parking Event / Medical Necessity
The Defendant understands that the vehicle was stopped for approximately 1 minute and 39 seconds only.
This was not “parking” but a brief stop due to the driver feeling unwell, requiring the passenger to take over driving for safety reasons.
The Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows the driver’s door open, supporting that this was a transient, emergency-related stop rather than a parked vehicle.
Such a situation amounts to:
•   A temporary interruption, not parking, and
•   A necessity/safety stop, which cannot reasonably form a contractual breach
No reasonable parking operator could interpret this as acceptance of parking terms.
________________________________________
5. No Contract Formed / Inadequate Signage
It is denied that any contract was formed.
A contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. A driver who stops briefly due to illness cannot be said to have read, understood, and accepted contractual terms.
The signage is put to strict proof of:
•   Visibility,
•   Prominence, and
•   Ability to be read within seconds.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires fairness and transparency. Any alleged terms in this case fail that test.
________________________________________
6. No Legitimate Interest – Distinguished from Beavis
The Claimant cannot rely on ParkingEye v Beavis.
In that case, a clear overstay in a retail car park created a legitimate interest.
Here:
•   The stop was under 2 minutes
•   No parking space was occupied for any meaningful time
•   The stop arose from illness and safety concerns
This is a trivial, unavoidable event, not misuse of parking facilities.
Any charge in these circumstances is punitive and unconscionable.
________________________________________
7. Lack of Landowner Authority
The Claimant is put to strict proof of full landowner authority to:
•   Issue parking charges, and
•   Pursue litigation.
This must include a contemporaneous contract and defined site boundaries.
________________________________________
8. Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim
The added costs are unrecoverable and constitute double recovery.
The court is invited to strike out or disallow these sums.
________________________________________
9. POFA – Maximum Sum Exceeded
Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum.
The Claimant is not entitled to recover more than the original parking charge.
________________________________________
10. Conclusion
The Claimant has failed to establish:
•   Keeper liability
•   Driver identity
•   A valid contract
•   A legitimate interest
The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/M4tUhaqoD5gknxDw8?g_st=aw

This is the google map view of where they were stopped.

Thank you.

Here's the back : https://ibb.co/XZMkNwdM

Thank you. Changing the last point to this:

5. As keeper liability cannot be established, the appeal must be allowed

Although NCP was entitled to contact the registered keeper, it is not entitled to hold the keeper liable for this charge.

As:

The land is not relevant land

PoFA does not apply

The driver has not been identified

The operator has failed to prove that the appellant was the driver

The charge is unenforceable against the registered keeper.

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to establish liability against the appellant as registered keeper.

Please post up the original PCN and the appeal outcome - redacting only personal details - leave dates visible.

Thanks. Heres all the pics: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/uubli7qy28agyjg41tefr/NCP.pdf?rlkey=we4w9ck3a7ra15a43cbstdfbg&st=bxl68eif&dl=0

Chatgpt has created the following appeal so please let me know if this is good enough to send.

1. The appellant is the registered keeper and the driver has not been identified

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has not identified the driver and I have not admitted to being the driver.
No evidence has been provided that I was the driver on the date of the alleged event.

There is no legal requirement for a registered keeper to identify the driver to a private parking operator, and no adverse inference can be drawn from a keeper exercising that right.

2. The location is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

The alleged parking event occurred at Gatwick Airport Drop Off, which is land subject to statutory control and airport byelaws.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only allows a parking operator to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper if the land is “relevant land”.
Land subject to statutory control is explicitly excluded from the definition of relevant land.

As Gatwick Airport is governed by airport byelaws, PoFA cannot apply at this location.
This is a well-established position and has been repeatedly accepted by POPLA in airport cases.

3. Because PoFA does not apply, only the driver can be liable

Since PoFA does not apply at this location:

Keeper liability cannot be created

The registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge

Only the unknown driver could potentially be liable

The operator is therefore pursuing the wrong party.

4. The operator has failed to prove that the appellant was the driver

In cases where PoFA does not apply, the burden of proof rests entirely with the operator to demonstrate that the person they are pursuing was the driver.

NCP has provided no evidence whatsoever that I was the driver.
There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was also the driver, and POPLA and the courts have repeatedly confirmed that no such assumption can be made.

This position is supported by persuasive case law, including (but not limited to):

Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (Manchester County Court)

Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Quayle

These cases confirm that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver and that the burden of proof remains with the operator.

5. The PCN has therefore been issued incorrectly and must be cancelled

Because:

The location is not relevant land

PoFA does not apply

Keeper liability cannot be established

The driver has not been identified

The operator has failed to prove driver identity

The charge has been issued incorrectly and is unenforceable against the registered keeper.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and instructs the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in full.

You've blanked the PCN details so we can't check pictures.

Sorry PCN is EF16051628 and VRM is NL64 FJP

https://parkingservices.itsvc.co.uk/enfield/notices/

Thank you BigBazz - I will drive down today to check if the signs are visible by Milfield.